Did God Invent Us, Or Did We Invent Him

[Phoenix-D]

One comment since I don't have time to do a thourgh reply tonight:

If the Bible is not meant to be taken out of context and used as examples, etc..

WHY do Christians insist on doing it? You begin your post telling him not to do that and end it doing exactly that!

[Azselendor]

Gbrutt, That's the problem, behe didn't discuss the topic he used, he simply offered opinions. Thay didn't expand on the topic, this is what his critics point out. Oddly, you say he's not a christian, however, any research into his work history shows the amount of work he did for creationist/intelligent design schools. By simplying saying someting is complicated and thus has to have someone design it on purpose, means nothing. It's grasping. Blood Clotting is a bio-chemical process and any doctor can tell you how it happens. Eye Development could more than likely be answered or even covered by any high school biology teacher. Exploding beatles? Come on now, that's something you can look up in a library. Science is never about answers, it is about finding the answers. Behe really needs to think before he rights. You should be able to find his critics by simply running a google search just like I did and pulling up the relevent articles and clippings.

On computers, while each step does involve a human mind, it's not the direction of a sole individual. It's the input and suggestion and needs of many being realized via the efforts of a single process. the programmer merely acts as evolution, not as god. that is a significant difference. As for the outcome requiring favorable conditions, not always. Infact, life has shown a remarkable ability to endure and continue even when faced with certain doom. to quote, "Life Finds a Way"

Excuse me, Biogenesis today is a corruption of the original concepts of Biogenesis. Creationists have latched onto it hoping to unseat evolution. Keep in ming the Miller-Urey experiment produced some of the organic components of life, but failed to produce a living, reproducing organism. not a borken breaker. This should be looked as not as a failure, but as a simple example that the technology doesn't exist yet to preform the tasks. And yes, we can create matter and energy in a lab. living creatures are just harder

Yes, the Steady State Theory has been alrgesly disproven, but keep in mind that the rate of expansion in the universe shouldn't be accelerating either. Big Bang theory doesn't make allowances for that.

Using the word 'Miracle' doesn't validate theology. Miracale is a way of expressing extreme probability.

The problem with creationist mythology is the fact that it does not answer questions. It just provides commentary from a book that people write off as answers without giving it a citital thought. You attack my phrases, but examine your own. You'll say one thing, a retract it or say something counter to a previous post. Behe, for example. How can you not know his religious standings? did you even read his book or just the inside dusk jacket flap? You own attacks on evolution are merely questions poised to look like you mock it. Answer Colin Patterson if they were directed to a creationist. The bible doesn't provide testable answers, it just says, "this is the answer, don't question it or you're satan". Besides, SJ's beat me to it. lol

Actually, I do not assume humans are as they always are today. Humands today differ from humans 100 years ago and from humans another hundred years more. Creationism and Bible Apologists assume humans have always been the same. You're entire argument on the lines from your misassumption of what i was talking about actually has nothing relevent to what I was saying. lol

What I was saying, and you didn't grasp it, was that if you assume god designed humans as they are today, then you also assume he did a piss poor job of making us in his image. Not a booboo, a PissPoor Job. The kind of job I'd expect from someone not paying attention to what they are doing.


SJ, I was pointing out humans are promoting evolution in various insects and bacteria by allowing the strongest of them to survive and reproduce by eliminating the the lower 99.9% of all life. Survivial of the fittest via dues ex machina.


back to gbrutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Read an learn beyond the bible thumping. You need to get your facts straight.

[Atrocities]

I think, no better to say that I believe, I believe that we are doing more harm in the long run by tampering with the genetic code, biological make up, and the use of hormons in live stock and in the field of bioengeneering than we could possibly even begin to comprehend now. By splicing this bugs dna with that bugs dna in the hopes of creating a super bug that eats bad bugs, we are putting ourselves, and indeed our world at risk. This goes for insects, animals, planets, as well as virus - bugs and such.

[Suicide Junkie]

Klvino [ORB] said:
SJ, your example of evolution being non random is an example of forced evolution where if artificially eliminating a large majority of the population, you improve the gene pool. However, there is a flaw in this. Bananas, believe it or not, will more than likely be extinct in all of our life times because humans have pretty much bred all genetic diveristy out of the modern banana. As a result, it can easily be wiped out if a banana-born disease manages to get free.

I'm sorry. Are you trying to point out that humans are destroying ecodiversity?
We already know that humans are breaking the so-called "natural" patterns with medicine and pollution and clearcutting.
Hell, we've halted the ice age cycle and put people on the moon.

ANYWAYS.
With your typical group of critter, the worst mutations die before birth. The pretty bad ones will die after birth when they can't do basic things nessesary for survival.
Lots of the rest get eaten by predators because they were a little bit slower, a little bit more stupid, or has "lower stats" that contribute to their failure.

In non-social critters, they still have to compete against each other for food. Only the best get to eat consistently, and the rest starve.
In social critters, they still have to compete against each other to attract mates.

---

There is a pretty high attrition rate, especially during developmental stages, I'm afraid to say.

Out of all the eggs and embryos, there is an average of just one per parent that survive to breed again in a stable population. That's pretty bad odds.

[Suicide Junkie]

What evidence can you provide to prove your your hypothesis? In your evolutionist point of view, how did all that is get here? How do you explain irreducible complexity in relation to forms of life? Can you tell me how is it possible that they could have come about? What about the utter lack of intermediate forms, which should be superabundant, given the amount of time and fossils which have been uncovered? Or the fact that even given the greatest possible amount of time, the radical changes from one type to another are impossible?

1) Reams of results from archaeology, biology, physics and everywhere.
2) It starts with a large star. Star goes nova, generating heavy elements. Heavy elements are mixed into galactic gas, from which Sol & system forms. Add energy indirectly from Sol, in various forms, and relatively complex molecules form. You roll the dice in billions of places for ages, and you get the jackpot of a simple self replicating molecule. Then it really starts steamrolling.
3) Quite simply, its not.
4) Too vague.
5) See Zeno's paradox, and quit your silly recursion.